“Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”
34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
-D&C 121
It has become all too common within the bloggernacle for those who see any and all appeals to priesthood authority as intrinsically immoral to misrepresent their relationship to the church with an inaccurate reading of the passage above. Accordingly, I think it will be helpful to disentangle some issues that have consistently and perhaps intentionally been run together.
1) All priesthood leaders are unqualified – and you are no different. The church is supposed to be run by revelation, not reason. Thus, any person’s experience, qualifications, graduate degrees, etc. are largely irrelevant. Like the illiterate fisherman of old, it is usually the case that the least qualified – by worldly standards – are the best priesthood leaders for the simple reason that they aren’t as tempted to rely upon whatever training the world has provided them. It’s when the decisions of our priesthood leaders make perfect sense to our worldly learning that we ought to be worried.
2) It is unrighteousness – not irrationality or incompetence – that negates priesthood authority. Since the church is being run according to (from a worldly perspective) irrational revelation passed down through incompetent, yet authoritative channels, there is a huge temptation for priesthood leaders to abuse that authority. The world’s solution to this problem is to dissolve and/or constrain that authority through the use of reason. This, however, is not the Lord’s solution. The fact that what a priesthood leaders says seems patently absurd does not make it any less authoritative. Not one bit. What does make his words and actions less authoritative is personal unrighteousness on his part, especially any use of authority which is meant to further his own interests rather than those of the Lord.
3) There is such a thing as righteous dominion. This is really what lies at the heart of such willful misunderstandings, since we have been trained in our modern, democratic world – especially within the social sciences, arts and humanities – that any kind of dominion is necessarily unrighteous… But D&C 121 suggests otherwise. Yes, any priesthood dominion that is aimed at steering authority to one’s own advantage at the expense of others’ is clearly unrighteous. But those forms of priesthood dominion that do not fall under this category are perfectly legitimate. I don’t pretend to know exactly where the line between the two camps is – the main point is that there are two camps here. Thus, the idea that any form of “pulling rank” automatically counts as unrighteous bullying is totally unfounded.
4) Our duty to follow our righteous leaders is totally separate from their duty to not bully us. Too often we see people using the passage above as a pretext for not hearkening to their priesthood leaders’ council – but the two are not at all the same thing. Throughout the scriptures and church publications we are consistently told to sustain, hearken to, follow and even obey our duly ordained and righteous priesthood leaders. I’m not saying that there aren’t any scriptures that ever tell us to withhold or tone down our loyal obedience – only that this passage isn’t one of them.
5) The only way to check a priesthood authority is through an appeal to a higher priesthood authority. In other words, at no point is the priesthood authority supposed to be sidelined, dissolved or merely “taken into consideration”. An appeal to authority is not a fallacy within the church, let alone a sin. If we have an issue with the council of a righteous priesthood leader we can either take the issue to him, his priesthood leaders or go directly to the top of the priesthood chain by way of prayer. But in no sense is the worldly appeal to reason and critique of authority justified within the Lord’s church.
Those who specialize in reasoning about and critiquing religious beliefs have always been the most vocal opponents to the Lord’s prophets. This should come as no surprise since this just is the power struggle between reason and authority – a struggle that never has and never will completely end in this fallen world. The scholars have always mocked the saints for the exact same reason that they feel threatened by them: They superstitiously follow their authorities without feeling any apparent need to rationally justify their discipleship. I’d like to think that this post helps us understand both sides of this ongoing struggle.
Amen.
Comment by Jack — November 17, 2014 @ 6:43 pm
When it comes to “pulling rank” verse 41 applies:
The only tools we have are persuasion, long-suffering, etc.
Comment by lemuel — November 17, 2014 @ 6:52 pm
Why do you assume that “pulling rank” (note the obvious scare quotes) cannot be an example of any of those things? Why is an appeal to authority inescapably unrighteous? After all, verse 37 definitely leaves the possibility of righteous dominion wide open.
Comment by Jeff G — November 17, 2014 @ 6:55 pm
What about the “reproving betimes with sharpness” bit?
Comment by Jack — November 17, 2014 @ 7:04 pm
I was “quoting” the blog post. Each of us can decide for ourselves whether or not to be scared by it.
If you can pull rank, without exerting power or influence, then you have my blessing.
adverb: sharp
1.
precisely (used after an expression of time).
“the meeting starts at 7:30 sharp”
synonyms: precisely, exactly, on the dot; More
antonyms: roughly
2.
in a sudden or abrupt way.
“the creek bent sharp left”
synonyms: abruptly, suddenly, sharply, unexpectedly
“the recession pulled people up sharp”
I prefer the first definition–to make the person you are reproving precisely understand what it is you are reproving him for, so that he won’t “esteem thee to be his enemy.”
Comment by lemuel — November 17, 2014 @ 7:18 pm
I have found your point #1 to be a comforting folk myth. Priesthood leaders in my experience are always improved by education and leadership experience outside of the church. The ones who struggle the most (and offend/drive away the most people) tend to have the least to draw on from other parts of their lives. Inspiration has to have raw material to work with–not a lot of humble fishermen in the 12 these days.
Comment by Owen — November 17, 2014 @ 9:48 pm
“The church is supposed to be run by revelation, not reason.” Hogwash. Sure, the really big decisions and direction of the church should come from revelation but the running of the church, the day to day operation of the church, even major operations and major policy decisions, depend on the competence and reasoning of those in charge.
“For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant;”
Also, consider every parable where Christ compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a master traveling to a distant land and leaving his servants in charge where the servants are expected to take care of things without any oversight from the master.
Comment by DB — November 18, 2014 @ 7:08 am
I think “persuasion” is broad enough to emcompass an appeal to authority, which is, after all, one of the classical tools of persuasion. But note also that persuasion has to combined with patience, gentleness, meekness, and sincere love, to be legitimate. The same verse pretty clearly make it out of bounds to maintain power or influence “by virtue of the priesthood.” The bottom line is that I don’t think it is categorically impossible to appeal to authority in a righteous way, but to do it without maintaining power or influence by virtue of the priesthood, and in such a way that it is still meek might be a tricky needle to thread.
Comment by JKC — November 18, 2014 @ 11:05 am
I also think any discussion of the idea of righteous dominion, contrasted to the “unrighteous dominion” referred to in verse 39, is incomplete if it does not deal with verse 46, which suggests that righteous dominion has no need for “compulsory means.”
Comment by JKC — November 18, 2014 @ 11:11 am
I think the English word dominion is completely incompatible with the Gospel. A bishop should never “dominate” anyone. Those are relationships we have with animals we’re going to eat and conquered enemies not our brothers and sisters. Saying that unrighteous abuse is bad does not mean there is a good kind of abuse.
Comment by Owen — November 18, 2014 @ 12:24 pm
Unrighteous = Dominion
Righteous = Stewardship
Comment by SilverRain — November 18, 2014 @ 12:40 pm
SilverRain,
I am writing that one down. It needs to be remembered. Thank you.
Comment by DD — November 18, 2014 @ 1:48 pm
Lemuel,
It is a little embarrassing that I forgot to specifically address verse 41 on. That said, I think the passage that I did quote and address makes it pretty clear that the power and influence that it is talking about is personal power and personal influence at the expense of others’. After all, I think all people agree that priesthood authority is power and influence of some kind. The burden, then, is to figure out which kind of power and influence is good and which is bad. I think that’s what my post does.
Owen,
Whether that’s true or not (and I think Jesus thought otherwise), it’s beside the point. A leader’s experience and qualifications are totally beside the point of whether they exercise legitimate authority or not.
DB,
That’s bit of a stretch as far as proof-texting goes. Either way, it’s somewhat beside the point – it being that unrighteousness and not incompetence is by far and away the threat that the scriptures warn against. The scriptures never ever say “when a person seeks to make a decision that doesn’t make sense, amen to the priesthood of that man.” Of course a church leader will use human reason (and who is to say when his reason is inspired or not?), but that reason is to always be constrained and trumped by priesthood authority and revelation.
JKC,
That is exactly the main point I was trying to make. To many think that an appeal to authority is a fallacy, if not a sin within the church. Such is simply not the case. Everything beyond that crucial point is of secondary importance.
Owen and SR,
That’s a nice opinion, but it’s not backed up by scripture. The passage I quote makes it pretty clear that there is such a thing a righteous dominion no matter how dirty humanists have made that word over the last 200 years. Verse 46 makes it explicit:
Feel free to search the scriptures for other endorsements of righteous dominion. I think you guys are falling for the humanist trick wherein all dominion of any kind is simply defined as unrighteous as a way of marginalizing any appeal to authority. These values, however, were invented within the last 300-400 years specifically as a means of negating religious influence in peoples’ lives.
Comment by Jeff G — November 18, 2014 @ 2:34 pm
The word “stewardship” is pretty well established in modern-day teachings, Jeff. I was merely providing a synonym for “dominion” that helps people move away from the “domination” aspect of the word.
When one has righteous dominion, as the scripture you quote makes clear, there is no element of compulsion. Compulsion IS, however, (unlike the word “stewardship,” an element of the modern understanding of the word “dominion.” I imagine that’s why modern prophets and apostles typically use it, rather than “dominion.”
Comment by SilverRain — November 18, 2014 @ 2:52 pm
I might point out to you that this is precisely the reason we have modern-day revelation, scripture, and prophets. Because far more important than a word and its semantics is the understanding of the principles of the kingdom by those who are being taught.
Comment by SilverRain — November 18, 2014 @ 2:53 pm
The appeal to modern revelation is definitely the best response to my historicism. The only reason I can think of that people don’t use it more often is that it requires a degree of modern day revelation that many Inn the ‘nacle aren’t willing to accept. Naturally, my posts aren’t really aimed at peoplewho endorse that much revelation in the church, so I don’t really push back against it.
As for the rest of the reply,i will push back a bit. First and foremost, the whole point off the post is to address a passage where the word is used. Second, I’m not willing to let humanists define scriptural words for us. Their definition is exactly what fuels the misinterpretation of the passage. Third, I feel like righteous dominion really hammers home the clash between the worldviews that is at play here. If somebody is willing to concede that stewardship is righteous dominion, then we probably don’t disagree all that much.
Comment by Jeff G — November 18, 2014 @ 3:14 pm
In this case, it’s a difference of purpose, perhaps.
You are aimed at reclaiming the word. I’m aimed at trying to help people understand the meaning of what you’re saying. That IS why I made the analogy, why I bothered to chime in at all, and that’s probably where I should have explained. “Stewardship” is a word people already understand. When you draw that comparison, you can bridge the lack of understanding the meaning of the term “righteous dominion.” It keeps people from getting hung up on the inconsequentials, and gives them room to agree with you without accepting the negative connotations associated with the word “dominion.”
Comment by SilverRain — November 18, 2014 @ 3:32 pm
Well then I suppose a “thank you” is in order! ;)
To be honest, I don’t care about the word all that much. What I do care about is that passage that has the word in it, and the ways in which that passage is misappropriated. I have a hard time seeing how we can read that passage for what it is without reclaiming the word…. This is all the more important considering how often the passage is quoted as a kind of trump card against conservatives.
Comment by Jeff G — November 18, 2014 @ 3:56 pm
Yes. It is ironic that people use that quote to discount compulsion and “trump” conservative arguments.
The question of obeying authority has two parts: the obeyer, and the authority. From the authority’s perspective, the “without compulsion” becomes a vital self-check, and from the member’s perspective, it becomes a good check against automatic obedience.
But the person who automatically obeys without question is a huge strawman. I’ve never met such a person. The real difference is whether or not the person uses questions as an excuse not to obey, or uses the questions in an honest struggle to understand and know what to do.
When “without compulsion” is used as a trump card, it’s generally as an excuse to refuse to listen to authority at all, rather than as a narrow scale.
I personally find that the times I’ve been directed to reject authority, it’s been with “fear and trembling” before God. There is no defiance, only a leap of faith that the direction I’m receiving contrary to counsel is really from God. The other half of the coin to leading “without compulsion” is to sustain leadership, not with unquestioning obedience, but with patience and humility.
To me, anyways.
Comment by SilverRain — November 18, 2014 @ 4:43 pm
Exactly!
This is especially what I was targeting. So many of my posts are meant to draw attention to how the world’s response to abuses of authority was to dissolve authority altogether. But this was never meant to be the Lord’s response. So many of our “natural” reactions to authority-words stem from the world’s rather than the Lord’s response. This is exactly why I insist upon using such harsh sounding terms – to push back against the “naturalness” of our negative reactions rather than simply allow them to rule us.
Comment by Jeff G — November 18, 2014 @ 5:20 pm
I may be wrong, but to a point that might feed the very thing you combat.
Though that is certainly a separate debate.
Comment by SilverRain — November 18, 2014 @ 8:51 pm
I do not believe that “righteous dominion” exists in the way you are suggesting. I spent a little time with the scriptures and found four ways that “dominion” is used:
1- God’s power over His creations and by extension the power He grants those who achieve exaltation,
2- Power God grants people over the physical world,
3- Political power necessary for societal order,
4- Unrighteous control.
I have not found any place where the responsibility for another person’s welfare is referred to as “dominion.” Church leaders are not given dominion over other members. Parents are not given dominion over their children. No spouse is given dominion over the other.
The scripture does not say “a little power or influence can . . .” or “necessary power or influence can . . .” It says “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood.” The only righteous dominion is that exercised by God and that which prevents social chaos.
I do not believe that scripture is used to justify completely refusing to listen to authority. That is a stawman. When our leaders speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, we feel that power and are influenced by the Spirit. That is the proper source of power and influence.
Comment by DD — November 19, 2014 @ 7:12 am
Argh. “Strawman” not “stawman.”
Comment by DD — November 19, 2014 @ 7:13 am
If you read the rest of the sentence you quote, DD, you will see that there IS a way power and influence can AND ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood. That may not be a way to rule that most of us understand from a secular sense, but it is still rule, and it is the manner of rule by which God has “power over His creations.”
And whether or not you believe that scripture is used to discount the need to listen to authority, it is frequently used in just that way, as all of us who defend following the prophet have frequent occasion to experience.
Comment by SilverRain — November 19, 2014 @ 8:31 am
Note, also, that mankind is part of God’s creations.
Comment by SilverRain — November 19, 2014 @ 8:32 am
The sentence continues by saying that “power and influence can only be maintained by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned. The priesthood is not an ingredient, though priesthood holders ought to possess all of them. I am confident that the Spirit will work with those qualities to influence those who the priesthood holders work with.
Comment by DD — November 19, 2014 @ 9:00 am
Only if we overcome our pride and soften our hearts. If we get so caught up in fears of “patriarchy” or unrighteous dominion, it hardens our hearts to the Spirit and makes us unable to hear the word of the Lord as spoken through His chosen stewards.
I’m not making this up. I say that as someone well acquainted with fear and the effects it can have on spiritual growth.
Comment by SilverRain — November 19, 2014 @ 9:49 am
SilverRain,
Thank you. I know you have faced and overcome many challenges, based on your blog comments. I agree that a preoccupation with unrighteous dominion can cause spiritual damage.
I do believe that priesthood leaders themselves should be aware and avoid unrighteous dominion. That is why I like your analogy above. It is also why I think the phrase “righteous dominion” is problematic when referring to stewardships.
Comment by DD — November 19, 2014 @ 10:30 am
SR in # 21:
That would certainly be a debate I would like to have. I most definitely think it applies to the topic at hand.
DD,
Your #3 just is the priesthood power. Remember, The vast majority of the scriptures were written from a pre-modern context in which the separation between church and state did not exist in the way it does now. As for the rest of the scriptures, it should be kept in mind that both Joseph and Brigham thought that the kingdom of God on earth was a literal kingdom. In other words, the difference between priesthood and monarchical authority is more one of degree than of kind. The righteous dominion of a priesthood leader would be very similar in kind, although not in degree, to the righteous rule of a king. This should come as no surprise since the priesthood just is the authority to represent and speak for the King of kings’ interests.
D&C 121 is a perfect example of this reading where unrighteous dominion is contrasted with a righteous and everlasting dominion. There is no reason whatsoever to suggest that this latter kind is supposed to be dominion over earth or animals. The only way that we would read it as such is if we follow our modern intuitions in assuming that all dominion is unrighteous. But that is to beg the question altogether.
But this just is the point! Debate and disputation – all forms of social chaos – ought never to arise since all of our publicly relevant information comes through priesthood channels that are really beyond question. When there is a righteous disagreement (meaning that all have prayed about the issue, but still disagree), debate, reason and critique is never the Lord’s answer. Instead, it is the person who is uniquely authorized that is to coordination and direct our public words and deeds. But this just is righteous dominion!
I can assure you that even if I don’t describe it as clearly as I’d like, I am not attacking a strawman. The Enlightenment was a multi-front attack on traditional authority – especially priesthood authority. One front of this attack came in the form of Protestantism – Christian religion that was strongly condemned in the first vision – wherein priesthood authority was universalized to all believers. The universalization of the priesthood authority, however, is no different than the dissolution of priesthood authority. What was left was a kind of informational authority – the exact authority that I am attacking – wherein an “authority” merely provides information or advice that is to be taken into consideration. This watered down, and quite worldly version of authority is not at all what the priesthood of God was ever meant to be, and it is exactly the conception of authority that one sees in those members who are unable to conceive of righteous dominion.
Unrighteous dominion is when a priesthood authority thinks he can overrule those above him (personal revelation falls under this category). Unrighteous discipleship is when a person thinks their own reasoning can overrule a priesthood authority. Sadly, the strong majority of people who merely cite section 121 in the ‘nacle are clear cases of unrighteous discipleship – many of them unknowingly so.
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 10:37 am
Priesthood power is not secular political power. If you know of a place where priesthood power is referred to as dominion, please show me. The cases I was referring to in number 3 were places where men such as Nebuchadnezzar, Solomon, or Caesar were given dominion. Spiritual power given to us in mortality is not described as dominion, as far as I can tell.
I am not arguing that people should ignore their bishops. I am arguing that thinking of priesthood power as “dominion” is a problem. I think that the meaning of the word extends before the Enlightenment.
Given that we have been told that debate, even heated debate, takes place in the meetings of the highest quorums of the Church, I disagree that it should never happen. However, debate does not need to lead to disputes. I agree that disputation should not happen.
Comment by DD — November 19, 2014 @ 10:57 am
Jeff G: “Unrighteous dominion is when a priesthood authority thinks he can overrule those above him (personal revelation falls under this category).”
The key definition to me here is “righteousness”. If authority defines righteousness then there is no way for authority to be unrighteous.
Your hierarchical interpretation of priesthood power is not in this scripture.
The enlightenment between 1660 and 1790 was used against the most unrighteous authority on earth to prepare the way for the gospel to be restored in the only Christian country not overly influenced by historical catholic practices.
Comment by Martin James — November 19, 2014 @ 11:17 am
DD,
“I am not arguing that people should ignore their bishops. I am arguing that thinking of priesthood power as “dominion” is a problem. I think that the meaning of the word extends before the Enlightenment.”
I never accused anybody of believing that. Rather, I’m saying that there is one interpretation (largely Protestant in nature) wherein we only pay attention to whatever input our leaders have and another interpretation where we are to hearken to, sustain and obey our righteous leaders. Most people who quote D&C 121 intend the former and incorrect one.
To be sure, there has always been unrighteous dominion. How ever, the very origins of word “Lord” shows that there was most definitely a place for righteous dominion. “Dominus” is the Latin word for Lord. In Greek the word for Lord – “Kyrios” – means master as implying absolute ownership. This word was applied not just to God and as such most definitely presuppose the possibility of righteous dominion.
Martin,
“If authority defines righteousness then there is no way for authority to be unrighteous.”
Even if that authority is God? Any appeal to the euthryphro dilemma is merely a rhetorical ploy by which philosophers subvert authority figures.
“Your hierarchical interpretation of priesthood power is not in this scripture.”
You’re right, this passage merely presupposes it. That is the only way that the references to righteous dominion make any sense.
“The enlightenment between 1660 and 1790 was used against the most unrighteous authority on earth to prepare the way for the gospel to be restored in the only Christian country not overly influenced by historical catholic practices.”
Okay. I guess I’ll have to infer some kind of an argument here. Yes, the Enlightenment was a revolt against (what we all agree was) unrighteous dominion. The restoration of the gospel, however, was a revolt against that worldly response to the unrighteous dominion. You’ve said before that Mormonism is not true Catholicism. I agree, but it’s a whole lot closer to that than it is to true Protestantism. THAT’S the mistake that I’m trying to argue against.
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 11:36 am
Let’s put the rubber to the road here. Is this an example of unrighteous dominion on the part of this bishop?
BISHOP: I would like you to have the sisters in the ward do X.
RELIEF SOCIETY PRESIDENT: I don’t think that’s a good idea, Bishop. I’ve been praying about what we should do, and I just don’t feel good about doing this. I wish we could spend some more time discussing what to do.
BISHOP: I do feel good about it. I am the bishop of this ward, so you need to either implement my idea or I will replace you.
RELIEF SOCIETY PRESIDENT: You’ll need to replace me then.
(The bishop will not benefit personally in any way from program X. He is sincere in his belief that it is the best course of action and believes the spirit has confirmed this. Although it is hard to imagine, let us also say that his ego is not involved.)
We could similarly construct a scenario in which a husband appeals to the covenant his wife has made in the temple to hearken to his counsel in order to compel her acquiescence to his preferred course of action. Again, with all parties sincerely believing the Spirit supports their preferences.
Are these examples of unrighteous dominion as described in the D&C?
Comment by Owen — November 19, 2014 @ 11:53 am
Again, my point isn’t where the line that divides the two sides actually lies. Rather, my point is that there are two sides and that righteous dominion is very much a part of God’s plan. Anything to the contrary is, with very little doubt, the product of humanist philosophy.
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 12:46 pm
D&C 121:46 is the best place that “dominion” is used to refer to an eternal and righteous dominion.
See also:
Christ’s: Jude 1:251 Peter 5:11, D&C 76:119, Micah 4:8, Alma 12:15,
Ours: D&C 76:95, D&C 121:29, D&C 76:111, D&C 132:19,
Comment by SilverRain — November 19, 2014 @ 12:59 pm
Thanks SR.
J. Stapley has done a lot of fantastic research that shows how Joseph envisioned the priesthood organization in this life. Suffice to say that he took the kingdom of God on earth VERY seriously.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1885588
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 1:09 pm
I don’t think there are two sides. I think priesthood authorities *always* have to seek support for their decisions by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned rather than acting through compulsion based on their position. Attempting to compel based on an appeal to one’s priesthood authority isn’t just wrong, it doesn’t work long-term. It breeds resentment rather than support. It leads to divorce, abuse, and dependency in marriages and listless knuckling-under rather than magnification in church callings. A husband or bishop who chooses this route is asking for an endless stream of troubles because even the most righteous get sick and tired of being bossed around by people whose views are limited by their inability genuinely to take input from others. It may not be the Old Testament way, but it’s how we’re taught to do things now in 2014.
Comment by Owen — November 19, 2014 @ 1:18 pm
I know, and in so thinking you *assume* that persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned cannot coexist with dominion. This assumption is false. The closest you’ve come to backing up that assumption is merely rehearsing what has been taught by the same modern humanists that inspired the apostate Protestant conception of priesthood authority. That is what lies at the end of the slippery slope.
You mean “it may not be the scriptural way, but it’s how we’re taught to do thing in our modern, secular culture.”
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 1:36 pm
“The restoration of the gospel, however, was a revolt against that worldly response to the unrighteous dominion.”
The first vision account and other accounts of the restoration do not mention worldly atheism much. They mention other religions a lot.
Comment by Martin James — November 19, 2014 @ 2:19 pm
What in that scripture is inconsistent with the idea that the true test of authority is righteousness?
What legitimates authority is righteousness.
What do you think is meant by “any degree of unrighteousness?” With mortals wouldn’t the presumption be that there is always some unrighteousness and therefore the presumption that dominion is unrighteous rather than righteous?
Why the phrase “any degree”?
Comment by Martin James — November 19, 2014 @ 2:26 pm
P.S. Good to see you posting again.
Comment by Martin James — November 19, 2014 @ 2:31 pm
Martin,
I never said anything about atheism. I am arguing that righteousness and not competence is what legitimates authority. The phrase “any degree” implies that there are kinds of dominion that do not have unrighteousness. “Unrighteousness” qualifies dominion. Were righteous dominion an impossibility then there would be no need to qualify it.
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 2:42 pm
It is unrighteousness – not irrationality or incompetence – that negates priesthood authority
I’d be somewhat careful pushing this too far. On the one hand the general idea you’re getting at is correct. On the other higher authorities are constantly correcting the irrationality or incompetence of other authorities. Exactly how one interprets that is tricky. Does it mean they weren’t being authoritative? Or that they were as were the correctors?
A good example might be my mother’s patriarchal blessing. The patriarch gave her one but there was some worry about his mental condition so all those with blessings from a certain period had to have them redone. (Interestingly, according to her, her new blessing was substantially the same from a different patriarch)
Comment by Clark — November 19, 2014 @ 2:47 pm
Clark,
Most of my criticism is aimed at reason as defined by Habermas if only because it’s so inclusive while sit being incompatible with priesthood authority. Basically, the point he harps on most (Alvin Gouldner’s critique of the New Class says the same thing) that what most defines modern reason is its egalitarian nature. That any appeal to one’s social standing or position of any kind is a fallacy and therefore cannot be a legitimate response to doubts and questions. I find this egalitarianism to be totally at odds with a priesthood organization – and I think the historical record attests to this incompatibility.
Thus, I do not find any form of correction (provided its righteous) that flows authoritatively down stream to violate what I am arguing for here. Yes, correction from priesthood leaders can take on the appearance of reason or competence, but this appearance is misleading since it is the authority of the leader that is doing the heavy lifting in such instances.
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 2:56 pm
No, Jeff G, that’s how we’re taught to do things in the Church. We’re taught to counsel together. We’re taught that the FP and 12 never proceed until everyone agrees. We’re taught that spouses are coequal and that neither should lord over the other. We’re taught that presiding means leading by example and offering blessings, not putting your foot down and being the one in charge.
Your “secular humanists” sound suspiciously like McCarthy’s communists.
But you’re right in a sense. What we’re taught in the Church now is different from before. The work of revelation continues, and some, like you, are being left behind clinging to a past that wasn’t all that great for anyone but people like you. Sometimes new teachings require ears to hear too.
Comment by Owen — November 19, 2014 @ 3:18 pm
Most Latter-Day Saints do recognize that righteous dominion (stewardship) exists and submit themselves to it at various degrees. So I think this passage warrants one question which seems to be the cause of controversy: Is a certain action actually part of someone’s dominion/stewardship?
It doesn’t seem that the scripture answers HOW rather than the WHAT, but the controversy is in the WHAT.
1.) For example, it is a bishop’s responsibility to determine temple worthiness, so he may encourage a person to repent of his sins by using the standards in D&C 121:41-46, and a person is required to do as the bishop counsels in order to have full fellowship. That is authority that most Saints commit themselves to.
2.) However, you might have a Stake President who says that you are not worthy to attend if you practice oral sex in your marriages (true story). That a person would use his position to try to control the sexual lives of the members is not something that many would say he has dominion over, and I don’t believe that the priesthood was set up to control us in that way. An appeal to authority is not a satisfactory solution to what many would feel to be a dilemma.
It is in the second kind of example that we see a lot of the questioning of authority. To me, the red flags are almost always about trying to control people, rather than how a leader is encouraging them to live gospel principles and how the ordinances are administered–which is what the scripture seems to deal with.
Comment by Pierce — November 19, 2014 @ 3:19 pm
What defines modern, worldly culture is atheism not egalitarianism.
I haven’t seen anyone on the bloggernacle advocate for apostles and prophets being determined by credentials or by popular vote.
Can we, or can we not replace “righteousness” with “what authority says to do” and have the meaning stay the same?
Who defines righteousness? If it is God, how does God teach us a language we can use with each other that effectively communicates righteousness?
I’m interested in your opinion on what status materials published on the LDS website have. Are they authoritative or are they not?
Comment by Martin James — November 19, 2014 @ 3:21 pm
“‘Unrighteousness’ qualifies dominion.”
Regarding my previous post, perhaps it is reasonable to say that unrighteousness might reside more with the specific action/request of a leader rather than just the personal worthiness of the person or how he delivered it. He may be a stellar guy, and he might have completely acted in love unfeigned etc., but his action is unrighteous by virtue of it being outside his realm of stewardship.
I know it’s a bit of a different way of looking at this Jeff, but I’d be curious to get your take.
Comment by Pierce — November 19, 2014 @ 3:25 pm
Owen,
For somebody who knows so little about me, you presume much in your ad hominem attacks. That said, if you believe that the church has received revelation on this issue and has thus moved on from the position I’m defending, that is perfectly fine. I sincerely see that as a great thing that you have that much faith in the church being led by God. That said, that claim is beside the point. If the church has move on, then people in the bloggernacle need to stop quoting that passage that has supposedly been left behind. Head’s, I win; tails, you lose. If the church has not moved on, then those people who use D&C 121 are wrong. If the church has moved on, then those people are still wrong to quote the passage – just for different reasons.
Pierce,
I think I’m pretty much on board with your comment. Again, I’m not very committed to where, exactly, the line is, but I think your second example depends a lot upon the motives behind the SP’s questions. If he’s asking such things as a way of personally exercising control over others – in other words to further his own interests at the expense of others’ – then it definitely seems to be a case of unrighteous dominion. If, however, the SP is guided by the spirit and seeks the welfare of zion, the example becomes less obvious.
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 3:31 pm
Martin,
I see no reason to accept you overly strong definition of modern culture. There is much in modern culture that says you can believe whatever you want so long as you don’t infringe on other people’s rights and freedoms. This is not an endorsement of atheism, but egalitarianism.
Lot’s of people call priesthood leaders to task for their “naivete” regarding evolution, gender issues, church history, etc. The list goes on and on.
No don’t see any reason why “authority” or “that which is righteous” need to be nailed down in any such way. The whole quest for necessary and sufficient conditions that would make up a platonic definition is bogus. Authority just means that not everybody’s opinion on some matter (including what righteousness means) is not of equal value. Any thing beyond that seems entirely unmotivated to me.
I still have no clue what your issue regarding language and meaning is supposed to amount to.
Of course LDS.org is more authoritative than ldsblogs.org. More importantly, this difference in authoritativeness has nothing to do with qualifications or competences.
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 3:40 pm
Pierce,
I think we would all agree that acting outside of your stewardship is an example of unrighteous dominion. I’m not too sure, but I think I follow you in applying my reasoning to actions rather than people.
The main point is that the qualifications or competences that are behind a priesthood leader’s authoritative actions has nothing to do with the legitimacy of those authoritative actions. This follows from 1) the church being run by revelation rather than mere reason and 2) the biggest threat to hierarchical organizations is the abuse of authority not irrationality.
This point undermines a strong portion of those who would reason against or critically distance themselves from priesthood council (aka authoritative actions) – which seems to be the primary motive for people quoting section 121 in the ‘nacle. In other words, a close reading of 121 serves to reinforce rather than critically distance our allegiance to priesthood authority when we disagree with a leader.
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 3:51 pm
Jeff G.
The scripture can also but used to say that almost all men exercise unrighteous dominion when they have authority.
Comment by Martin James — November 19, 2014 @ 4:12 pm
Of course. That’s exactly what my post is about!
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 4:26 pm
This time you brought up the definition issue in comments
“Second, I’m not willing to let humanists define scriptural words for us. Their definition is exactly what fuels the misinterpretation of the passage.”
Who are you to decide what words mean?
Comment by Martin James — November 19, 2014 @ 4:33 pm
So, where does it say that one can’t appeal directly to God for what is righteous?
The bloggernacle commentors I see think that God and righteousness are on their side rather than just thinking reason and expertise are on their.
I don’t think that many of them would decline the opportunity to have God weigh in on their case, rather than have an egalitarian decision maker.
Comment by Martin James — November 19, 2014 @ 4:41 pm
I’m not saying what the words mean. Rather, I’m saying who isn’t in a position to define scriptural words – aka secular humanists. I have no more authority than they do. Of course the prophets trump both me and the humanists.
“So, where does it say that one can’t appeal directly to God for what is righteous?”
Sigh, questions like these make me lose my patience. I said that a direct appeal to the highest priesthood authority is always open. In other words, the exact opposite of what you’re attributing to me.
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 4:57 pm
Yes, so the only question is whether authority is subject to a public standard of righteousness.
There is no issue. Everyone agrees authority has to be righteous before or they have no authority.
Comment by Martin James — November 19, 2014 @ 6:06 pm
I didn’t attribute that appeal to God wasn’t open, I was reminding you that you also believe it is open.
You are trying to “privatize” what it means to be righteous and I am saying that the fact that language is public makes the standard for righteousness public.
Comment by Martin James — November 19, 2014 @ 6:08 pm
“You are trying to “privatize” what it means to be righteous”
No, I’m not. Once again(!) I’m not privatizing anything. I’m simply denying that all equally competent and qualified perspectives are equally valid without regard for their priesthood authority. Why you keep thinking that my position or the one I am denying is at all related to any kind of private language is totally beyond me.
Comment by Jeff G — November 19, 2014 @ 6:24 pm
Jeff,
I agree with your summary of what this is really about. Authority exists– it’s not always comfortable, and is something that we must often ‘get’ comfortable with so as to allow this to be a house of order. To try to do away with authority is, indeed, unfounded.
This to me has more to do with the person, rather than the action itself. 121 does indeed apply in this case. My point, however, is that an authority could very well have the best of intentions, as I’m sure most do, yet still be doing something wrong for what he assumes are the right reasons. Good intentions aren’t good enough for me to change how I would do things with my wife (borrowing from #2), and it wouldn’t for many if not most reasonable church members. So this is where I think you’re losing some of the other guys who are commenting. You would have to have to give up on the validity of all actions of an authority at SOME point.
Comment by Pierce — November 19, 2014 @ 10:20 pm
One more thing on another way that I look at authority (I am preparing to get a damning response for this ;-)
When it comes to control, does it really matter? The scriptures seem to lay down what judgment is about. Jesus taught what the gospel is, how to act, what the 2 great commandments are. The channel of revelation from Him is still open. Our understanding of the plan of salvation gives us insight that we are to become as He is. But I don’t see a lot about how strictly one obeys other men affects judgment or exaltation.
When I see leaders detract from the gospel or reinvent it or add to it, and do so by virtue of their office, I have a hard time seeing how it is righteous–intentions aside. It may be good advice, but a binding commandment? In the end, whether or not I obeyed the SP’s extracurricular command will have zero affect on my discipleship to Christ and where I end up in the hereafter, methinks. So why the insistence?
Comment by Pierce — November 19, 2014 @ 10:36 pm
OK, how about this.
What makes something righteous?
Comment by Martin James — November 19, 2014 @ 10:37 pm
Jeff G.,
I’m going to try a different approach to try to show you my concern and that I’m not just saying “nope” to your view.
So, let’s assume for purposes of this discussion that the analogy of the enlightenment to religious authority historically is a good analogy. Furthermore, let’s assume that the response of the religious authorities at the time was ineffective – in other words that non religious authority gained power and influence relative to religious authority.
So my question for you is this. Is your approach to the issue significantly different from and also more effective in combating “modern thought” than the responses of the religious authorities at the time?
My position is that enlightenment was effective because religious authority at the time was not very righteous and not very adaptive to retain the moral high ground.
One concern I have with your approach is that it passes to God the responsibility to ensure that the people with authority are righteous. That is not an totally unreasonable idea but it also seems like a very activist role for God with less of the “do-it-yourself” than I find in Mormonism. In other words, its up to all of us individually and collectively to produce righteous leaders. After all, leaders were often taught in households of non-leaders, for example.
Why do you think that more focus on trusting in authority will be any more effective in resisting the enlightenment this time than last time around. Does knowledge of the process provide some resistance, for example?
I don’t disagree with you about the power of authority or the benefits of obeying authority. My concern is that you are willing to excuse authority for unrighteousness and place entirely on God the responsibility for keeping authority righteousness. I don’t think that is correct religiously, nor effective practically.
Comment by mtnmarty — November 20, 2014 @ 10:32 am
Pierce,
Of course. That’s why we can always appeal to a higher authority. Nobody, except the highest authority, is perfect.
“But I don’t see a lot about how strictly one obeys other men affects judgment or exaltation.”
Well if you can point me to where Jesus is publicly speaking to us without a human intermediary, then that might actually be a live option. Of course, my position is even stronger than that. It’s that God has authorized men to act in His name – to represent Him. Thus, whether it is through His voice on the voice of His servants, it is the same.
Your view makes authority the same as citation within a scholarly article in that priesthood authorities only are such when they are quoting or citing – rather than merely representing – the Lord. I see no support for this view outside of secular sources.
Martin,
What does that kind of metaphysical speculation matter? Righteousness is doing what we’ve been commanded to do – this very sentence makes the appeal to authority quite clear.
Comment by Jeff G — November 20, 2014 @ 10:37 am
Mtnmarty,
Thanks for the level-headed response. I hope I understand and respond to you in a way that further the conversation.
Well, my response from their is quite a bit different. My response is to point others to the legitimate authority that has been restored on the earth – with the assumption that we all accept it as legitimate authority. The enlightenment conflict boiled down to “authority has become/is corrupt, let’s do away with it” vs. “who are you to fight against God’s authority”. But we as Mormons ought to reject both of these sides. Our side ought to be “authority had been corrupt, but God restored it.”
I’m not I agree with the way you’re framing the issue. For starters, Mormonism is very much against “doing-it-yourself”. We can do nothing for ourselves – and I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way. The thing is that once we admit that we no longer do it ourselves, then we are pretty much forcing God to play an activist role. God plays this role in two ways: 1) He inspires a priesthood leader’s superiors to weed out unrighteous authorities and 2) He inspires those with the unrighteous authority’s stewardship to not follow him any more and seek the true authority elsewhere. I think a lot of Protestants did follow this path during the reformation, but sadly it is not the mentality that won the battle either out in the world or within the Protestant tradition.
I partially addressed this above when I said drew a distinction between staying with authority, rejecting authority and restoring authority. I do, however, also think that knowledge of the process does help. Since the winners of the enlightenment struggle have overwhelmingly been the one’s who have written the story of it, it has been portrayed – especially within higher learning – as if there were only one alternative to unrighteous dominion, namely the option that higher learning embodies. They are the one’s who have hammered into us that appeals to authority are a fallacy, the euthyphro dilemma, the fear of “blind” obedience, and so on. I hope that by drawing attention to the historical contingency of and the motivations behind such claims we can open up the possibility of embracing the restoration of authority. In other words, in the same way that knowledge was and is used to critically distance people from authority, so too knowledge can be used to critically distance us from an imperialistic view of human reason.
Comment by Jeff G — November 20, 2014 @ 11:06 am
What does it mean to be the Lord’s representative? Does it mean that you are to reinvent, add to, or diminish from what the Lord has taught? Because I actually can throw out a few references to the contrary. To me, being the Lord’s representative means that you are teaching the Lord’s gospel, providing ordinances, and serving people. If I need to, I can provide plenty of evidence as this being what they are called to do.
If your own commandment doesn’t have a foundation in revelation, then who are you really representing?
I can’t think of a lot of scriptures where controlling people’s behavior by virtue of your office is a part of that, can you?
Comment by Pierce — November 20, 2014 @ 1:43 pm
“Thus, whether it is through His voice on the voice of His servants, it is the same.
This, I feel, is a scripture that has been taken out of context in an effort to assert authority. The context is found in the preceding verse. Here it is in its entirety:
My commentary: The Lord is talking about prophecies and promises, which shall all be fulfilled. What He has said will come to pass, and He does not excuse Himself. These promises and prophecies will all be fulfilled by His own voice or by the voice of His prophets. It will be the same outcome either way.
What this does not say: Whatever a priesthood leader says is what God is saying or would say, or that he endorses it.
Comment by Pierce — November 20, 2014 @ 1:59 pm
What do you mean by “foundation”? One way (that I reject) is that a priesthood leader must be able to cite a revelation in order to justify his actions. But this is to deny that the leader has any authority at all. This is the Protestant move that I am arguing against.
The representation that I have in mind is when a lawyer represents his client. Everything he says on his client’s behalf is not merely citing what the client has previously said. There is room for the lawyer to not only elaborate, but actively say many things which represent the interests of his client, even if the client has not said so himself. Another example would be a mid rank officer within the military who is given authority to represent the higher chain of command, but is not limited to merely parroting or citing what that higher authority has in fact said. In both cases there are boundaries and limits to such representation and these limits and set by the person that is being represented.
Within a church context, the limits of a bishop’s authority to represent his higher authorities (all the way up the the Highest Authority) are set by those same higher authorities. This is NOT the same as a bishop limiting his words and actions to what has explicitly been said by those higher authorities since (as was said earlier) it is not meet that the higher authorities command in all things.
The important thing in this context is that the limits to authority and righteous dominion come from higher up the chain of authority, not from below. It is this logic that makes a righteous appeal against a particular authority figure equal to an active embrace of priesthood authority at some other (higher) level. This stands in contrast to the modern embrace of reason as a way of distancing oneself from priesthood authority altogether.
“I can’t think of a lot of scriptures where controlling people’s behavior by virtue of your office is a part of that, can you?”
Isn’t that pretty much all scripture is? Isn’t the entire D&C an attempt at controlling the behavior of the saints? Isn’t every sermon, every visit to the temple just that? In all of these cases we have an authorized speak who very rarely says “thus saith the Lord.”
Who in the world ever claimed that? This is the same well worn trick of trying to equate appeals to authority as on unconstrained or blind obedience.
With regard to the passage in question I would say:
1 – Your interpretation is at least as speculative as mine. In no way does it say that prophets’ voices are legitimate only insofar as they do not go beyond citation. The passage does, however, strongly imply that His servants are authorized to represent His will and word.
2 – Who are the ones misreading the passage as you perceive? If it’s the prophets and apostles doing the misreading (in conference, for example), then I think I’m on pretty safe ground.
3 – The basic sentiment that I am reading in the passage can be found in other passages. (Isaiah 50:10 – which is quoted by Nephi – is a good exmaple.) The leadership of both Joseph and Brigham are full of the examples I have in mind.
Comment by Jeff G — November 20, 2014 @ 2:34 pm
I think the root of the difference in our perspective is that to me the two greatest commandments are metaphysical in the extreme.
What does it mean to be commanded to love?
That’s what I mean by “do-it-yourself”. Everyone has to figure out for themselves what it means to love God and neighbor.
Comment by Martin James — November 20, 2014 @ 3:17 pm
At the risk of stating the obvious, I think metaphysics is largely intellectuals’ attempt to make themselves seem relevant. In the present context, it pretext (very similar to the euthyphro dilemma) for reason and those who specialize in wielding it to get a piece of the authoritative action.
Yes, we all have to interpret things for ourself and this process involves the inter-subjective acceptance of some claims and interpretations as legitimate and others as not. The idea that anybody does it ALL by him or herself is totally incoherent.
The point I am making is that not every person’s claims and interpretations on the subjection are of equal value. That’s just what authority is, setting some person’s claims and interpretations apart from others.
With regards to your position (I think) you’re trying to say that every person has an equal right and duty to speak in favor of some claim or interpretation. This democratic approach to interpretation makes perfect sense and it is the one I am attacking.
A little more concretely, pre-modernity held that some people were authorized to exercise a disproportionate influence with regards to questions of interpretation. Modernity was a revolve against this setting apart of an authorized few with an attempt of democratizing truth and meaning to all. By the light of contemporary social critics, however, this modern quest failed since authority was dissolved in a democratic egalitarianism, but was instead transferred from divine or noble authorities to a propertied class that disproportionately controlled the media by which we all negotiate meanings. My position is that neither the old feudal authorities nor the propertied class of today retain their disproportionate influence over meaning and truth. Nor should it be democratized (I’m convinced that this could never happen in practice – for what would actually happen is that this disproportionate influence would only be transferred to scholars and intellectuals which would then constitute a new authority). Instead, the Lord restored a new set of authorities which were to play this role within the LDS community.
Within such a view of history, the idea of do-it-yourself meaning/truth makes no sense.
Comment by Jeff G — November 20, 2014 @ 3:35 pm
“One way (that I reject) is that a priesthood leader must be able to cite a revelation in order to justify his actions.”
Depends on what he is doing. Giving counsel? Teaching doctrine? Running a ward? Making callings? Planning a social? I agree that he is not to be commanded in all things. I said previously that there are things that we accept as far as leadership goes. But we’re talking about inventing God-like, binding commandments, and I still don’t see that they have that responsibility. To me, they are to carry out what the Lord has established and do so by the Spirit. And sure, there is interpretation and flexibility involved. This is my example scenario all over again, but I feel like you are trying to defend an absolutist position that really isn’t absolute.
“Isn’t that pretty much all scripture is?
I don’t see it as control (compulsory means). At the most basic level I see it as loving persuasion along with some cause and effect. Satan’s plan was to control us with his authority, remember? Besides, you’re talking about scripture, which we can often trace back to God–especially the case for D&C. How many authorized people today are speaking for God as Joseph or ancient prophets did? Equating that request of the SP to the scriptures is not very compelling. There is an infinite difference between God and man.
“Who in the world ever claimed that?”
This aint a trick. That’s what you are implying. You are using this scripture to support the idea that “God has authorized men to act in His name – to represent Him.” Either we agree that there is a limitation to what a leader is authorized to say and do on his own initiative, or we disagree on the point that a leader has the flexibility to act on his own as a representative, and that what he says has the same affect as God saying it, a la Section 1. Right? Why invoke Section 1? What happened to our agreement?
…………….
1. Speculative? I gave the often ignored context of the often quoted passage. I would like you to point out the flaws in how I’ve interpreted it. Is the context of a scripture important, or do we just emphasize the one little line that we like?
2. I’m not sure, I would have to search on lds.org to see if the higher-ups are using it, or if it’s a seminary thing, or if it’s just fellas like you. In any case, if you believe this, I agree–you’re probably on safe ground. If you don’t, not only does nothing happen to you, but you have the ability to lessen the cognitive dissonance that is bound to occur with such an absolute way of thinking, and accept priesthood leaders for who they really are.
3. You have a pretty good case with this point. But I think that there is a pretty big difference between the church today and the church under Joseph. Revelation, angels, prophecy, tongues, visions, and gifts of the Spirit were part of their collective experience in that short time, and isn’t really part of mine in a significant way. But that’s a whole other topic (and one that I am at terms with).
Comment by Pierce — November 20, 2014 @ 3:56 pm
I don’t know about you, but I wasn’t talking about anything that grandiose. Nevertheless, I do object to priesthood authorities being construed as mere administrators of decisions that are made by other people or – worse still – mere administrators of abstract, universal principles equally accessible to all reasoners. They have authority to make some decisions within their jurisdiction that are not merely parroting decisions made at higher levels.
Lot’s of people “feel” this way about what I’m saying but are never able to provide examples of me saying it…. And that, I think, is what is behind the numerous misrepresentations of my position. What I’m trying to do is provide a partial genealogy for these “feelings”: they come form our secular culture, not from the Lord. They are an expression of a fear of authority which schools instill within us from a young age. Within a Mormon context, this “feeling” finds expression is all sorts of false dichotomies and non-sequiters that we see in the ‘nacle: all appeals to authority are based in infalliblity, unreasoned obedience to authority must be “blind”, any kind of authority as such must be “absolute” or “compulsory”, and so on. But I have repeatedly (so many times) said that authorities are not infallible, obedience is not blind, authorities’ views are not absolute nor are they compulsory.
“I don’t see it as control (compulsory means). At the most basic level I see it as loving persuasion along with some cause and effect. Satan’s plan was to control us with his authority, remember?”
God issues commands to us. This is done by way of priesthood leaders. These commandments are a kind of dominion and control. Satan’s plan was something other than this. Thus, the exercise of priesthood authority and righteous dominion is also something other than Satan’s plan.
Of course they’re limited… but only by higher authorities.
Well, the connection I was drawing was that God has given His representatives authority to represent Him and speak for Him in the ways that they prayerfully see fit… so long as these ways do not violate the bounds set by authorities above him. That is the main difference, in that God has no authorities above Him. Thus, to say that a bishop has absolute (as in unconstrained from above) authority under my view is quite obviously wrong.
I feel like all of this should have been obvious from what I’ve said, but I apologize if it wasn’t.
Comment by Jeff G — November 20, 2014 @ 4:25 pm
So what are 5 specific cases where you think people on the bloggernacle would change their specific actions based on using your understanding of authority.
What commandments from authority do you have in mind?
Comment by Martin James — November 20, 2014 @ 5:07 pm
“They are an expression of a fear of authority which schools instill within us from a young age.”
They give us that fear from what they do, not what they teach. Authority sucks.
Comment by Martin James — November 20, 2014 @ 5:12 pm
Martin,
Every post that critiques or pushes back against the church would be written differently. I’m not going to name names, but anybody who ever thought that they thoughts, reasons and politics were relevant to how the church is run would go out the window. In other words, the bloggernacle itself would be very, very different.
Comment by Jeff G — November 20, 2014 @ 5:21 pm
1. Man’s Free Agency.—The Church holds and teaches as a strictly scriptural doctrine, that man has inherited among the inalienable rights conferred upon him by his divine Father, absolute freedom to choose the good or the evil in life as he may elect. This right cannot be guarded with more jealous care than is bestowed upon it by God Himself; for in all His dealings with man, He has left the mortal creature free to choose and to act, with no semblance of compulsion or restraint, beyond the influences of paternal counsel and loving direction.[119] True, He has given commandments, and has established statutes, with promises of blessings for compliance and dire penalties for infraction; but in the choice of these, God’s children are untrammeled. In this respect, man is no less free than are the angels and the Gods, except as he has fettered himself with the bonds of sin, and forfeited his power of will and force of soul. The individual has as full a measure of liberty to violate the laws of health, the requirements of nature, and the commandments of God in matters both temporal and spiritual, as he has to obey all such; in the one case he brings upon himself the sure penalties that belong to the broken law; as in the other he inherits the specific blessings and the added freedom that attend a law-abiding life. Obedience to law is the habit of the free man; ’tis the transgressor[55] who fears the law, for he brings upon himself deprivation and restraint, not because of the law, which would have protected him in his freedom, but because of his antagonism to law.
2. The predominant attribute of justice, recognized as part of the Divine nature, forbids the thought that man should receive promises of reward for righteousness, and threats of punishment for evil deeds, if he possessed no power of independent action. It is no more a part of God’s plan to compel men to work righteousness, than it is His purpose to permit evil powers to force His children into sin. In the days of Eden, the first man had placed before him commandment and law,[120] with an explanation of the penalty which would follow a violation of that law. No law could have been given him in righteousness had he not been free to act for himself. “Nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee, but remember that I forbid it,”[121] said the Lord God to Adam. Concerning His dealings with the first patriarch of the race, God has declared in this day, “Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself.”[122]
3. When the brothers Cain and Abel brought their sacrifices before the Lord, the elder one became angry because his offering was rejected; then the Lord reasoned with Cain, and endeavored to teach him that he must expect results of his actions to follow in kind, good or evil, as he might elect:—”If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.”[123]
4. A knowledge of good and evil is essential to the advancement which God has made possible for His children to[56] achieve; this knowledge can be best gained by actual experience, with the contrasts of good and its opposite before the eyes; therefore has man been placed upon the earth subject to the influence of good and wicked powers, with a knowledge of the conditions surrounding him, and the heaven-born right to choose for himself. The words of the prophet, Lehi, are particularly explicit: “Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself, save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other…. Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great mediation of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.”[124]
5. Alma, another Nephite prophet, in speaking of those who had died, said they had gone “that they might reap their rewards, according to their works, whether they were good or whether they were bad, to reap eternal happiness or eternal misery, according to the spirit which they listed to obey, whether it be a good spirit or a bad one; For every man receiveth wages of him whom he listeth to obey, and this according to the words of the spirit of prophecy.”[125]
6. Samuel, the converted Lamanite, upon whom the spirit of the prophets had fallen, admonished his wayward fellows in this wise: “And now remember, remember my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge, and He hath made[57] you free; He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and He hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death.”[126]
7. When the plans for creating and peopling the earth were under discussion in heaven, Satan sought to destroy the free agency of man, by obtaining power to force the human family to do his will, promising the Father that by such means he would redeem all mankind, and that not one of them should be lost.[127] This proposition was rejected, while the original purpose of the Father,—to use persuasive influences of wholesome precept and sacrificing example with the inhabitants of the earth, then to leave them free to choose for themselves, was agreed upon, and the Only Begotten Son was chosen as the chief instrument in carrying that purpose into effect.
Comment by Martin James — November 20, 2014 @ 5:26 pm
“They give us that fear from what they do, not what they teach. Authority sucks.”
In a certain sense (which I explained in 70) you’re right. The school system (especially at the higher levels) is aimed at dissolving all OTHER forms of authority. Nevertheless, their actions are very often (especially at the lower levels) expressions of authority. The difference, so they claim, is that their authority can (ideally) be cashed out in terms of the administration of impersonal principles that are accessible to all through the proper reason that they happen to be the judges and administrators of. But this quite clearly expresses what’s wrong from an LDS perspective: human reason isn’t the standard to which we are supposed to hold decisions.
Comment by Jeff G — November 20, 2014 @ 5:27 pm
I think it odd that people talk like prophets aren’t prophetic on the bloggernacle. We are agreed on that.
But where are we commanded to think that authorities are not influenced by politics and are irrelevant to how the church is run?
Comment by Martin James — November 20, 2014 @ 5:28 pm
Martin,
What is the point of 76? Not only is it copied and pasted without contextualization, it (for that reason) remains utterly beyond me how it is supposed to contribute to the conversation. I certainly don’t disagree with anything said in it.
Comment by Jeff G — November 20, 2014 @ 5:31 pm
“But where are we commanded to think that authorities are not influenced by politics and are irrelevant to how the church is run?”
Again, I didn’t say that either. I’m losing patience.
Comment by Jeff G — November 20, 2014 @ 5:32 pm
Jeff,
I thought in 75 you were saying people would not push back in a way that they do and bring politics into things.
I don’t see where your arguments about authority oblige them to change their way of thinking. They all believe they are doing what is commanded by authority.
Comment by Martin James — November 20, 2014 @ 7:27 pm
I know I do :)
Comment by Martin James — November 20, 2014 @ 7:28 pm
“human reason isn’t the standard to which we are supposed to hold decisions.
That’s where most decisions come from, Jeff. Or else we would have a semi-perfect church where the only imperfection lies with execution, and where there is little to no issues in policy, programs, counsel, doctrine, etc. Priesthood leaders rely heavily on human reason.
“Lot’s of people “feel” this way about what I’m saying but are never able to provide examples of me saying it…”
It’s an accusation, not a quotation. Your interpretation and use of Section 1 demonstrates the absolute position, but when reasonable, real life objections come in, I don’t think you justify it well.
” But I have repeatedly (so many times) said that authorities are not infallible, obedience is not blind, authorities’ views are not absolute nor are they compulsory.
And in another breath you state that only a higher authority can determine ANY of that and whether or not this authority is to be obeyed in specific things. You are very much against the lay man having control over his own life, and that decisions must be cleared from someone higher than him, and then higher than him. Case in point: in my example I have to go to an area authority in order to ascertain what kind of sexual activities I am really allowed to have, and have no right to make that decision on my own.
How do you not see the compulsion here?
Comment by Pierce — November 20, 2014 @ 10:13 pm
I should just pre-emptively say that my last paragraph contains some hyperbole in the beginning
Comment by Pierce — November 20, 2014 @ 10:42 pm
Pierce,
“That’s where most decisions come from, Jeff. ”
Nobody is denying that. What I am denying is that human reason is the highest standard that even revelation and priesthood authority are supposed to be held to. The scriptures most definitely reject the idea that human reason is the standards against which religious belief and action ought to be measured.
“It’s an accusation, not a quotation.”
Well, the accusation ought to be backed by quotations then.
“Your interpretation and use of Section 1 demonstrates the absolute position, but when reasonable, real life objections come in, I don’t think you justify it well.”
I thought I already addressed this? Again, my position is NOT absolute and it pretty disingenuous of you to continue labeling it as such without any kind of substantial rebuttal.
“You are very much against the lay man having control over his own life, and that decisions must be cleared from someone higher than him, and then higher than him.”
In a certain sense, you’re right. God is the one who is supposed to have the final say over how we ought to live our lives. That’s just what religion is about – which is exactly why the Enlightenment rebelled against it.
“Case in point: in my example I have to go to an area authority in order to ascertain what kind of sexual activities I am really allowed to have, and have no right to make that decision on my own.
How do you not see the compulsion here?”
Replace “area authority” with “God” and I think you can solve your own question. We most definitely are supposed to consult God in such matters and yet you do not construe that as compulsion. Why the double standard?
Here is the misunderstanding that I think is behind your systematic misrepresentation of my position: You think an appeal to authority is, by very definition, backed by compulsion. This is simply not the case. God often appeals to Him own authority and yet does not back it with compulsion, nor do those people to whom He has given authority to represent Him.
Put another way, when we ask “why?” about something or another, an appeal to the priesthood authority of the person who answers sometimes – under the proper conditions of ordination, stewardship, righteousness, etc. – *is* a legitimate answer to the question. Secular modernism says that no appeal to authority can ever be a legitimate answer to any such question. That is the entire difference.
If you’re going to say that the former view entails compulsion while the latter does not, the burden is on you to show how God’s own appeal to authority (a clear example of the former view) is not compulsory AND why this same reasoning does not also excuse His representative’s appeal to authority.
To be honest, I don’t pretend to understand, nor do I think it is very clear how Satan’s plan involved compulsion. I’ve found almost all such appeals to Satan’s plan to be pretty slippery attempts at justifying some political (free market) or metaphysical (libertarian free will) position. Not that I think those positions themselves are wrong – I just think the appeal to “that was Satan’s plan” to be really desperate.
If any thing, I think “Satan’s plan” – as intended by Joseph Smith – was essentially an attempt to imbue the church with state authority similar to the Catholic church. In other words, Satan wanted to enforce righteousness and faithful membership within the church by physical compulsion in this life. My position is that this endowment of the Catholic Church with the powers of the state is exactly what delegitimized its authority. God does not force people in this life, nor do His representatives. Even if an appeal by Him or His representatives to their authority is supposed to be a legitimate answer to a “why?” question, the choice is still upon the person themselves as to whether they will acknowledge the legitimacy of that appeal.
Comment by Jeff G — November 22, 2014 @ 12:54 pm
Then again, Joseph Smith did run for president AND he did attempt to have himself crowned as a king in this life… so there’s probably some nuance there.
Comment by Jeff G — November 22, 2014 @ 3:07 pm
“What I am denying is that human reason is the highest standard that even revelation and priesthood authority are supposed to be held to.”
People aren’t really adamant about reason trumping revelation. It’s about priesthood leaders who are mostly led by human reason–as you have acknowledged.
“I thought I already addressed this? Again, my position is NOT absolute and it pretty disingenuous of you to continue labeling it as such without any kind of substantial rebuttal.”
Calling it disingenuous is not a good defense. I still have not seen a real explanation of your use of Section 1. All I have done is explain what your use and interpretation implies, and attempted to demonstrate that the real context of the scripture does not allow one to use it as a way to justify a priesthood leader’s utterings on any given subject as being approved by God or equal to his words. I invite you to address this head on.
“God is the one who is supposed to have the final say over how we ought to live our lives.”
Though we are at a tug-o-war, I feel that a lay man can invoke the will of the Lord by studying his words, revelations, and the Holy Ghost, and that this doesn’t always have to ratified by a priesthood leader. It’s often the priesthood leader who stops short of stating that his counsel comes from the Almighty.
“Replace “area authority” with “God” and I think you can solve your own question. We most definitely are supposed to consult God in such matters and yet you do not construe that as compulsion. Why the double standard?”
There is an infinite difference between God and man. In this case, a man is using his position to enforce his own will (as opposed to God’s) by giving ultimatums (temple recommend, loss of leadership position or calling). You have a choice to accept this or not, but don’t say that there isn’t compulsion. If it’s God doing it, I don’t care what label anyone wants to put on it–it’s going to always be right.
“To be honest, I don’t pretend to understand, nor do I think it is very clear how Satan’s plan involved compulsion.”
I’ll grant you this argument. I don’t truly see priesthood authority as an equivalent to Lucifer’s plan. They merely have the potential to use their authority unrighteously, which isn’t quite the same–so I’ll drop this compulsion talk.
Comment by Pierce — November 24, 2014 @ 4:38 pm